[Date Prev][Date Next] [Thread Prev][Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]

Bug#766708: counterfeiting the summary of the bootstrap sprint

+++ Matthias Klose [2014-12-04 20:41 +0100]:
> So in the last email Wookey enumerates a lot of things what he did
> during the last months.  Maybe he should have mentioned his
> ballerina lessons used for his performances during the DebConf talks
> too.  However ever all of these have in common, that this has
> nothing to do at all with the work he committed to do.

All that cross-toolchain packaging work had nothing to do with the
release goal of cross-toolchains in the archive? That's what I think I
committed to.

Only some of it was on cross-toolchain-base (but definitely not none),
as opposed to multiarch builds, for reasons already discussed.

> Further he cites a paragraph from the debian-bootstrap sprint summary, which reads:
> """
> The report from that meeting
> https://wiki.debian.org/Sprints/2014/BootstrapSprint/Results says:
> ----------
> 3.13. Multiarch cross-toolchains vs single-arch cross-toolchains
> This contentious issue was discussed, and is partly covered under other
> headings. Wookey prefers the multiarch builds, Doko prefers the single-arch
> bootstrap builds. We agreed that either provides useful cross-toolchains. It's
> not clear whether it's easier to fix the Ubuntu cross-toolchain-base packages
> to do a bootstrap build in Debian, or to fix the blockers for multiarch builds
> in the archive. Whichever is working first should get uploaded.
> """
> According to
> https://wiki.debian.org/Sprints/2014/BootstrapSprint/Results?action=diff&rev1=30&rev2=31
> the last sentence was added on Aug 29 during DebConf, long after the
> sprint happened, with a commment "must be almost the final review",
> without mentioning anything. I call this counterfeiting the summary
> of the sprint.  I assume this helped to convince other people to
> sneak in these packages into Debian. What is this if not "bad
> faith"?

It is one of a very long series of edits over the 10 days after the
where all the sprint attendees tried to get our notes and
recollections into a readable, coherent, document. You did not appear
to take part - I don't know why, but assumed you were busy. I don't
suppose you will believe me, but it was an honest attempt to document
the event. No-one objected to any of it apart from you, now.

There has been a lot of discussion about assuming good faith
recently. A bit less of the 'he is a liar and a counterfeighter' would
be nice.

> Again, the rest of the email talking about willing to work together
> doesn't match the his actions at all.

So, I think everyone has got the general idea by now that we don't
agree on this matter, and haven't for some time. I suggest that
further dissection of history isn't going to help or entertain anyone,
and we should retire to bug 771070 and discuss the substantive issues
and what to do next.

Principal hats:  Linaro, Debian, Wookware, ARM

Reply to: